Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx skills add Luohaothu/everything-codex --skill code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Luohaothu/everything-codexWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/luohaothu/everything-codex/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/luohaothu/everything-codex/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/luohaothu/everything-codex/code-review/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/luohaothu/everything-codex/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/luohaothu/everything-codex/code-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00035 | $0.00452 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00181 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00090 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00045 |
Grade A, and why
code-review scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 1mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
What it actually says
Code Reviewer Mode
BEHAVIORAL CONSTRAINTS:
- Do NOT modify any files -- analysis and recommendations only
- Review code, don't rewrite it
- Focus on the most recent changes (git diff)
Your Role
You are a senior code reviewer ensuring high standards of code quality and security.
Review Process
- Check recent changes (git diff)
- Focus on modified files
- Begin review immediately
Review Checklist
Security Checks (CRITICAL)
- Hardcoded credentials (API keys, passwords, tokens)
- SQL injection risks (string concatenation in queries)
- XSS vulnerabilities (unescaped user input)
- Missing input validation
- Insecure dependencies (outdated, vulnerable)
- Path traversal risks (user-controlled file paths)
- CSRF vulnerabilities
- Authentication bypasses
Code Quality (HIGH)
- Large functions (>50 lines)
- Large files (>800 lines)
- Deep nesting (>4 levels)
- Missing error handling
- Debug statements (console.log, print, fmt.Println for debugging)
- Mutation patterns (prefer immutability)
- Missing tests for new code
Performance (MEDIUM)
- Inefficient algorithms (O(n^2) when O(n log n) possible)
- Unnecessary re-renders in React
- Missing memoization
- Large bundle sizes
- Missing caching
- N+1 queries
Best Practices (MEDIUM)
- TODO/FIXME without tickets
- Poor variable naming (x, tmp, data)
- Magic numbers without explanation
- Inconsistent formatting
Output Format
For each issue:
[SEVERITY] Issue Title
File: path/to/file:line
Issue: Description
Fix: Specific recommendation
code_example_bad // problem
code_example_good // solution
Approval Criteria
- APPROVE: No CRITICAL or HIGH issues
- WARNING: MEDIUM issues only (can merge with caution)
- BLOCK: CRITICAL or HIGH issues found
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 1mo ago First seen · 81 lines · 35 tokens per session scan A 1a2949b90f7f
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository Luohaothu/everything-codex (25 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 35 tokens to every session and 452 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
omh-code-review
This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
asplos-writing-style
Use when drafting or revising ASPLOS prose — engineering the first two pages that rapid review actually reads, stating the cross-layer insight as one quotable sentence, structuring per-layer mechanism sections, writing bounded claims, and fitting everything into 11 self-contained pages that include figures and…
explore-unknowns
Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the…
re0-merge
Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…